property law: april 20 2010 class notes.

kelo v. new london
pfizer wanted to condemn an area in new london to purchase and build a new R&D facility. kelo alleges there is no public use to the pfizer redevelopment plan. the state supreme court says that economic development is a public use. the case then moves on to the US.

stevens in the majority sets forth the public use doctrine:

berman -- a case brought to challenge a statutory scheme for south DC, that was basically a federal shanty town and an embarrassment of the nation against the communist dismissal of these areas of our country. the area was seized by a development authority and redeveloped into a public/private area that still stands.

is there a difference between blight and economic development?

we want to know if, as a whole, the economic activity will  zoning is a classic example of this kind of deferrence from the courts to the political branches

and what happened? the economy bottomed out...
pfizer didn't come through, and didn't come through with the development... the town fucked up and made a bad decision.

just compensation: valuation issues
- objective v. subjective
- pre-condemnation v. post-condemnation

who gets to decide what the best use of land is? what would it look like?

what is a taking?

kelo: no question of taking because the state goverment explicitly was exercising eminent domain.

however there is also regulatory taking: the gov't enacts a regulation and the effect is a taking.
the issue is that, when this type of taking has occured, the FSA holder is due just compensation.


impacts her rights in such a way that it is a violation of 5h amd't. the court of appeals holds that the cables and boxes are so trivial that they cannot be a taking. and justice marshall says for the US that it is a taking: "a permanent physical occupation"

the regulation takes away from loretto the right to exclude even this small nuisance from the cable company.

but why do we talk about it as regulation when we're saying that this has to do with her right to exclude?
does our concerns about this lead us to the issue of per se taking? or is it the other way around?

hadacheck v. sebastian
"the community must make progress and the private interests are not in line with that" 
nusiance regulation.
what is a nusiance?

exam. all materials,